So if you've been following the news, you've heard that there's a pack of giant asteroids headed for the United States, all scheduled to strike within the next 50 years. Now I don't mean actual asteroids made of rock and metal. That actually wouldn't be such a problem, because if we were really all going to die, we would put aside our differences, we'd spend whatever it took, and we'd find a way to deflect them. I'm talking instead about threats that are headed our way, but they're wrapped in a special energy field that polarizes us, and therefore paralyzes us.
如果你有在注意新聞, 你應該有聽說有一個大群小行星 正往美國飛來, 將會在未來的50年內到達撞擊。 現在我要說的不是由石頭和金屬組成的行星。 事實上那不會是個問題, 因為如果我們都快要死了, 我們會把我們之間的歧異放在一旁, 我們會不計任何代價, 我們會想出辦法來使這些行星轉向。 而我要說的是我們即將面臨的威脅, 但是這些威脅被包在一個會讓我們分裂、 進而使我們癱瘓的特殊的能量場裡。
Last March, I went to the TED conference, and I saw Jim Hansen speak, the NASA scientist who first raised the alarm about global warming in the 1980s, and it seems that the predictions he made back then are coming true. This is where we're headed in terms of global temperature rises, and if we keep on going the way we're going, we get a four- or five-degree-Centigrade temperature rise by the end of this century. Hansen says we can expect about a five-meter rise in sea levels. This is what a five-meter rise in sea levels would look like. Low-lying cities all around the world will disappear within the lifetime of children born today. Hansen closed his talk by saying, "Imagine a giant asteroid on a collision course with Earth. That is the equivalent of what we face now. Yet we dither, taking no action to deflect the asteroid, even though the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it becomes." Of course, the left wants to take action, but the right denies that there's any problem.
去年三月,我參加TED會談, 我看到Jim Hansen的演講,他是一個NASA的科學家 也是第一位在1980年代提出對於全球暖化的警訊的人, 似乎他當時做的預測 將會成真。 以全球暖化來說,這是現在我們正朝向的地方, 如果我們繼續往這個方向走, 全球溫度在這個世紀末將會上升攝氏四到五度。 全球溫度在這個世紀末將會上升攝氏四到五度。 Hansen說海平面預計將會升高五公尺。 這是當海平面升高五公尺時的樣子。 在我們下一代的有生之年,世界上低海拔的城市都會消失。 在我們下一代的有生之年,世界上低海拔的城市都會消失。 Hansen用以下的話來結束他的演講: 「想像一個巨大的小行星正往地球飛來。 那就像我們現在面臨的危機。 但是我們猶豫慌亂,沒做任何事在使這個小行星轉向, 即使我們等得愈久, 要解決所需要花的力氣和花費就更大。」 當然,左翼的想做些事, 但右翼的卻否認問題的存在。
All right, so I go back from TED, and then the following week, I'm invited to a dinner party in Washington, D.C., where I know that I'll be meeting a number of conservative intellectuals, including Yuval Levin, and to prepare for the meeting, I read this article by Levin in National Affairs called "Beyond the Welfare State." Levin writes that all over the world, nations are coming to terms with the fact that the social democratic welfare state is turning out to be untenable and unaffordable, dependent upon dubious economics and the demographic model of a bygone era.
好了,所以我參加完TED會談回去, 在一個禮拜後,我受邀參加一個在華盛頓特區的晚宴 而我知道我將會見到一群保守派的知識份子 其中包括Yuval Levin, 而為了和他們見面做準備, 我讀了Levin發表在National Affairs 的一篇文章,叫做"Beyond the Welfare State"。 Levin寫道現在世界各國 都面臨到一個 國家社會民主福利制度 都將無法維持和無法負擔的狀態, 因為其依賴於未來不可預測的經濟 和過去的人囗統計模型。
All right, now this might not sound as scary as an asteroid, but look at these graphs that Levin showed. This graph shows the national debt as a percentage of America's GDP, and as you see, if you go all the way back to the founding, we borrowed a lot of money to fight the Revolutionary War. Wars are expensive. But then we'd pay it off, pay it off, pay it off, and then, oh, what's this? The Civil War. Even more expensive. Borrow a lot of money, pay it off, pay it off, pay it off, get down to near zero, and bang! -- World War I. Once again, the same process repeats. Now then we get the Great Depression and World War II. We rise to an astronomical level, around 118 percent of GDP, really unsustainable, really dangerous. But we pay it off, pay it off, pay it off, and then, what's this? Why has it been rising since the '70s? It's partly due to tax cuts that were unfunded, but it's due primarily to the rise of entitlement spending, especially Medicare. We're approaching the levels of indebtedness we had at World War II, and the baby boomers haven't even retired yet, and when they do, this is what will happen. This is data from the Congressional Budget Office showing its most realistic forecast of what would happen if current situations and expectations and trends are extended.
好,現在也許聽起來並不像小行星一樣的恐怖, 但是看一下Levin提供的圖表。 這個圖顯示國債 佔美國GDP的百分比,如你所見, 如果我們回到美國創立時期, 我們借了很多錢來打獨立戰爭。 戰爭很費錢。 但是我們慢慢地還債,還債,還債, 然後,哦,這是什麽? 南北戰爭。花的錢更多了。 借了很多錢,還債,還債,還債, 幾乎快還完了,然後,砰!──第一次世界大戰。 再一次地,又重複一次借錢還錢。 然後我們到了經濟大蕭條和第二次世界大戰。 負債比高到變成天文數字,到達了約GDP的118%, 到了真正的無法維持、 真正危險的地步。 但是我們還債,還債,還債, 然後,這是什麽? 為什麽負債比從70年代就一直上升? 一部份是因為沒有財源支持的減少稅收方案, 但是主要是因為各項津貼支出的增加 特別是醫療津貼。 我們快接近在二次世界大戰時的舉債程度, 更何況嬰兒潮時代出生的人還沒退休, 當他們退休時,這將會發生。 這是美國國會預算辦公室的資料 顯示他們依據現今之情況、期望、趨勢加以延展, 實際上最可能會發生的預測。 顯示他們依據現今之情況、期望、趨勢加以延展, 實際上最可能會發生的預測。
All right, now what you might notice is that these two graphs are actually identical, not in terms of the x- and y-axes, or in terms of the data they present, but in terms of their moral and political implications, they say the same thing. Let me translate for you.
好,現在你也許注意到這兩個圖表 實際上是一模一樣的, 不是在它們的x軸和y軸, 也不是指它們所呈現的資訊, 而是就它們在道德和政治上的含義, 它們是一樣的。 讓我翻譯給你聽。
"We are doomed unless we start acting now. What's wrong with you people on the other side in the other party? Can't you see reality? If you won't help, then get the hell out of the way."
「我們注定完蛋了,除非我們現在開始行動。 你們那邊另一派的人到底有什麽問題? 你們看不見現實嗎? 如果你們不幫忙的話,那就不要擋住我們的路。」
We can deflect both of these asteroids. These problems are both technically solvable. Our problem and our tragedy is that in these hyper-partisan times, the mere fact that one side says, "Look, there's an asteroid," means that the other side's going to say, "Huh? What? No, I'm not even going to look up. No."
我們可以讓這兩個大行星轉向。 這些問題都是技術上能被解決的。 我們的問題和我們的悲劇是在那些偏激黨派時代, 是只要一邊說: 「你看,有小行星!」 另一邊就會說:「什麽? 沒有的事,我連抬頭看都不要。沒有。」
To understand why this is happening to us, and what we can do about it, we need to learn more about moral psychology. So I'm a social psychologist, and I study morality, and one of the most important principles of morality is that morality binds and blinds. It binds us into teams that circle around sacred values but thereby makes us go blind to objective reality.
要了解為何這樣的事會發生在我們身上, 和我們能做些什麽事,我們需要更了解道德心理學。 我是一個社會心理學家,我研究道德規範, 在道德規範裡一個最重要的原理是 道德規範約束人們也使人們帶去判斷力。 道德規範讓我們圍繞著神聖的價值約束成一個團體 但是卻也因此使我們失去了面對客觀事實的能力。
Think of it like this. Large-scale cooperation is extremely rare on this planet. There are only a few species that can do it. That's a beehive. That's a termite mound, a giant termite mound. And when you find this in other animals, it's always the same story. They're always all siblings who are children of a single queen, so they're all in the same boat. They rise or fall, they live or die, as one. There's only one species on the planet that can do this without kinship, and that, of course, is us. This is a reconstruction of ancient Babylon, and this is Tenochtitlan.
你可以這樣來看。 大規模合作的例子在這個星球上是極少的。 只有少數幾種生物能做到。 這是蜂窩。 這是白蟻丘,一個巨大的白蟻丘。 當你在別的動物上發現這種大規模的合作時, 這都是同樣的模式。 他們都是兄弟姊妺、 都是單一一個女王的子孫, 所以他們都在同一條船上。 不是一起壯大就是一起衰弱、 不是一起活就是一起死。 這個星球上只有一種生物 可以在沒有親屬關係下做到 而那,當然,就是我們。 這是古巴比倫的重建、 這是特諾奇提特蘭城。
Now how did we do this? How did we go from being hunter-gatherers 10,000 years ago to building these gigantic cities in just a few thousand years? It's miraculous, and part of the explanation is this ability to circle around sacred values. As you see, temples and gods play a big role in all ancient civilizations. This is an image of Muslims circling the Kaaba in Mecca. It's a sacred rock, and when people circle something together, they unite, they can trust each other, they become one. It's as though you're moving an electrical wire through a magnetic field that generates current. When people circle together, they generate a current. We love to circle around things. We circle around flags, and then we can trust each other. We can fight as a team, as a unit. But even as morality binds people together into a unit, into a team, the circling blinds them. It causes them to distort reality. We begin separating everything into good versus evil. Now that process feels great. It feels really satisfying. But it is a gross distortion of reality.
我們當初是如何做到的? 我們是如何 從一萬年前的獵人和採集者 在短短地幾千年裡做到建造這些巨大的城市? 這是非常神奇的,而其中一個解釋 是這個能環繞神聖的價值的能力。 如你所見, 神廟和眾神在所有的古文明中扮演一個很大的角色。 這是穆斯林教徒在麥加圍繞克爾白的照片 這是一個神聖的石頭,然後當人們一起圍繞一個東西時, 他們團結,他們可以相信彼此,他們變成一體。 這就像你在一個磁場裡 移動一個電線,這會產生電流。 當人們環繞在一起時,他們產生電流。 我們喜歡環繞東西。 我們會圍繞旗子,然後我們可以相信彼此。 我們可以如同一個團隊、一個單位來戰鬥。 但是即使道德規範約束人們形成一個單位、 形成一個團隊, 這樣的約束使他們帶去客觀的判斷力。 這使得他們去扭曲事實。 我們開始把所有的東西分成好跟壞。 這個過程感覺很好。 它令人感覺很滿足。 但是那是對於現實一個很嚴重的扭曲。
You can see the moral electromagnet operating in the U.S. Congress. This is a graph that shows the degree to which voting in Congress falls strictly along the left-right axis, so that if you know how liberal or conservative someone is, you know exactly how they voted on all the major issues. And what you can see is that, in the decades after the Civil War, Congress was extraordinarily polarized, as you would expect, about as high as can be. But then, after World War I, things dropped, and we get this historically low level of polarization. This was a golden age of bipartisanship, at least in terms of the parties' ability to work together and solve grand national problems. But in the 1980s and '90s, the electromagnet turns back on. Polarization rises. It used to be that conservatives and moderates and liberals could all work together in Congress. They could rearrange themselves, form bipartisan committees, but as the moral electromagnet got cranked up, the force field increased, Democrats and Republicans were pulled apart. It became much harder for them to socialize, much harder for them to cooperate. Retiring members nowadays say that it's become like gang warfare. Did anybody notice that in two of the three debates, Obama wore a blue tie and Romney wore a red tie? Do you know why they do this? It's so that the Bloods and the Crips will know which side to vote for. (Laughter)
你可以看到這個道德的電磁鐵正在美國國會裡運作。 這張圖表顯示美國國會投票 落在左右兩派這條軸上的程度, 這張圖表顯示美國國會投票 落在左右兩派這條軸上的程度, 所以如果你知道某人是自由主義派或保守派的話, 你完全知道他們在主要議題上會投票支持哪一邊。 然後你可以看到的是, 在美國南北戰爭後的數十年內, 美國國會是非常兩極化的, 誠如你所預期的,其程度大到不能再大了。 但是在一次世界大戰後,程度下降了。 我們到達歷史上分裂兩極化程度最低的地方。 這是兩黨合作的黃金時期, 至少就黨派間互相合作 然後解決國家的問題上 至少就黨派間互相合作 然後解決國家的問題上 但是在80和90年代,電磁鐵又開始運作了。 兩極化程度增加了。 曾經在國會裡,保守黨和現代黨和自由黨 可以一起合作。 他們可以改組,成立兩黨合作的委員會, 但是當道德規範的電磁鐵開始變大時, 能量場增大, 民主黨人士和共和黨人士被分離。 他們變得愈來愈難有社交活動, 愈來愈難一起合作。 現今的退休國會會員說 那變成了像幫派間的戰爭一樣 有沒有注意到在三次競選辯論中有兩次, 歐巴馬戴籃色的領帶而羅姆尼載紅色的領帶? 你知道為何他們這麽做嗎? 這樣血幫和瘸幫(美國加州幫派) 會知道要投那一個。(笑)
The polarization is strongest among our political elites. Nobody doubts that this is happening in Washington. But for a while, there was some doubt as to whether it was happening among the people. Well, in the last 12 years it's become much more apparent that it is. So look at this data. This is from the American National Elections Survey. And what they do on that survey is they ask what's called a feeling thermometer rating. So, how warm or cold do you feel about, you know, Native Americans, or the military, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, all sorts of groups in American life. The blue line shows how warmly Democrats feel about Democrats, and they like them. You know, ratings in the 70s on a 100-point scale. Republicans like Republicans. That's not a surprise. But when you look at cross-party ratings, you find, well, that it's lower, but actually, when I first saw this data, I was surprised. That's actually not so bad. If you go back to the Carter and even Reagan administrations, they were rating the other party 43, 45. It's not terrible. It drifts downwards very slightly, but now look what happens under George W. Bush and Obama. It plummets. Something is going on here. The moral electromagnet is turning back on, and nowadays, just very recently, Democrats really dislike Republicans. Republicans really dislike the Democrats. We're changing. It's as though the moral electromagnet is affecting us too. It's like put out in the two oceans and it's pulling the whole country apart, pulling left and right into their own territories like the Bloods and the Crips.
我們的政治精英之間 兩極化的程度是最強大的。 沒有人懷疑這正在華盛頓特區裡發生。 但是有一陣子,有人懷疑是否 這種兩極化的情況也在一般大眾間發生。 好吧,在過去12年裡 情況已經變得愈來愈明顯。 所以來看這個資料。 這是來自美國全國選舉調查機構。 他們的問卷調查是詢問 他們稱之為感覺溫度計的評分。 所以就是你對於各種美國社會裡的族群的感覺 是有多暖還是多冷,你知道的, 美國原住民、或是軍方、共和黨、民主黨。 美國原住民、或是軍方、共和黨、民主黨。 藍色這條線代表民主派人士覺得對於民主派人士 感覺有多溫暖,他們喜歡他們。 你知道,評比是在100分裡得到70多分。 保守派人士喜歡保守派人士。這並不驚訝。 但是當你去看跨黨派的評比, 你會發現是比較低的,但是事實上, 但我第一次看到這個資料,我感到驚訝。 這其實沒有那麼差。 如果你回來看卡特甚至是雷根執政時期, 他們對於另一派的評比是43、45。 這沒有很糟糕。 評比有向下滑了一點, 但是現在來看在小布希和歐巴馬執政下發生了什麼事。 評比垂直下滑。這裡頭有問題。 道德規範的電磁鐵又被開啟了, 現在,到了最近, 民主派人士真的不喜歡保守派人士。 保守派人士真的不喜歡民主派人士。 我們正在改變。 這就像道德規範電磁鐵也正在影響我們。 這就像把國家放在兩大海洋上 而這電磁體正在把整個國家拉扯分裂, 把左派和右派分離到他們各自的領域。 就像血幫和瘸幫一樣。
Now, there are many reasons why this is happening to us, and many of them we cannot reverse. We will never again have a political class that was forged by the experience of fighting together in World War II against a common enemy. We will never again have just three television networks, all of which are relatively centrist. And we will never again have a large group of conservative southern Democrats and liberal northern Republicans making it easy, making there be a lot of overlap for bipartisan cooperation. So for a lot of reasons, those decades after the Second World War were an historically anomalous time. We will never get back to those low levels of polarization, I believe.
為何這會發生在我們身上是有很多原因的 其中很多原因我們是無法回頭的。 我們再也不會有一個政治群體 是由一次世界大戰中 一起對抗共同敵人的經驗所打造而成。 是由一次世界大戰中 一起對抗共同敵人的經驗所打造而成。 我們再也不會只有三個相對中間派的 電視網路了。 我們再也不會只有三個相對中間派的 電視網路了。 還有我們再也不會有一大群保守主義的南方民主派人士 以及自由主義的北方保守派人士來產生大量的交集、 並使得兩黨合作變得容易。 所以由於很多原因,二次世界大戰後的數十年 成為歷史上非常異常的一個時代。 我相信,我們的兩極化再也回不去那麼低的程度。
But there's a lot that we can do. There are dozens and dozens of reforms we can do that will make things better, because a lot of our dysfunction can be traced directly to things that Congress did to itself in the 1990s that created a much more polarized and dysfunctional institution. These changes are detailed in many books. These are two that I strongly recommend, and they list a whole bunch of reforms. I'm just going to group them into three broad classes here.
但是有很多我們可以做的事。 有很多很多 改革我們可以做來讓事情變好, 因為很多我們的功能障礙可以直接追溯到 美國國會在90年代裡對它們自已做的事, 這些事產生了一個更兩極化和有更多功能障礙的機構。 這些改變在很多書裡有詳細說明。 這裡有兩本我強力推薦, 它們列了很多改革。 我把改革分門別類成三大類。
So if you think about this as the problem of a dysfunctional, hyper-polarized institution, well, the first step is, do what you can so that fewer hyper-partisans get elected in the first place, and when you have closed party primaries, and only the most committed Republicans and Democrats are voting, you're nominating and selecting the most extreme hyper-partisans. So open primaries would make that problem much, much less severe.
所以如果你把這想成是 功能障礙、超兩極化的機構的問題, 那麼,第一步是, 盡其所能地讓更少的偏激黨派人士在一開始時被選上, 在封閉式初選裡, 只有最忠誠的保守派和民主派人士來投票, 你就任命和選擇了最極端的偏激黨派人士。 所以開放初選可以使這個問題輕微許多。
But the problem isn't primarily that we're electing bad people to Congress. From my experience, and from what I've heard from Congressional insiders, most of the people going to Congress are good, hard-working, intelligent people who really want to solve problems, but once they get there, they find that they are forced to play a game that rewards hyper-partisanship and that punishes independent thinking. You step out of line, you get punished. So there are a lot of reforms we could do that will counteract this.
但是問題主要不是在於我們推選錯的人進國會。 從我的經驗和我從國會內部人士裡得知, 大部份進入國會的人都是好的、認真工作的人, 都是些聰明的、真的想要解決問題的人, 但是當他們進入國會,他們發現他們被迫 玩一個對支持偏激黨派之爭的人給予讚許 而對獨立思考的人給予懲罰的遊戲。 你不守規矩,你得到懲罰。 所以有很多我們可以做的改革 來抵制這種事。
For example, this "Citizens United" ruling is a disaster, because it means there's like a money gun aimed at your head, and if you step out of line, if you try to reach across the aisle, there's a ton of money waiting to be given to your opponent to make everybody think that you are a terrible person through negative advertising.
例如,這個「公民聯合」裁決是一個災難, 因為那就像說有一把附帶著錢的槍指著你的頭, 如果你不守規矩,如果你試圖和不同黨派的人妥協, 你的對手就會收到很多錢 用負面的廣告來讓每個人認為你是一個很糟糕的人。
But the third class of reforms is that we've got to change the nature of social relationships in Congress. The politicians I've met are generally very extroverted, friendly, very socially skillful people, and that's the nature of politics. You've got to make relationships, make deals, you've got to cajole, please, flatter, you've got to use your personal skills, and that's the way politics has always worked. But beginning in the 1990s, first the House of Representatives changed its legislative calendar so that all business is basically done in the middle of the week. Nowadays, Congressmen fly in on Tuesday morning, they do battle for two days, then they fly home Thursday afternoon. They don't move their families to the District. They don't meet each other's spouses or children. There's no more relationship there. And trying to run Congress without human relationships is like trying to run a car without motor oil. Should we be surprised when the whole thing freezes up and descends into paralysis and polarization? A simple change to the legislative calendar, such as having business stretch out for three weeks and then they get a week off to go home, that would change the fundamental relationships in Congress.
但是第三種改革是我們必須去改變 國會裡社交關係的本質。 我所遇過的政治人物通常都是非常外向的、 友善的、有很好社交手腕的人, 而那正是政治學的本質。你必須得建立關係、 進行交易、 你必須要哄騙、討好、奉承、 你必須利用你的個人技能, 而那正是政治圈裡運作的方式。 但是從90年代開始,先是眾議院改變了 他們的立法日程表 如此所有的日常工作基本上是在一個禮拜中結束。 現在,國會議員在星期二早上搭機抵達, 他們爭辯兩天,然後在星期四下午飛回家。 他們不會把家人搬到(華盛頓)特區。 他們不會和彼此的配偶或小孩見面。 再也沒有關係了。 然後試著經營沒有人和人之間關係的國會 就像試著開一台沒有引擎油的車。 當整個東西變冷起來然後落入癱瘓並兩極化時 我們應該驚訝嗎? 當整個東西變冷起來然後落入癱瘓並兩極化時 我們應該驚訝嗎? 在立法日程表上的一個簡單的改變, 像是讓日常工作長達三個星期之久 然後放一個禮拜回家, 就可以改變現在國會的基本關係。
So there's a lot we can do, but who's going to push them to do it? There are a number of groups that are working on this. No Labels and Common Cause, I think, have very good ideas for changes we need to do to make our democracy more responsive and our Congress more effective.
所以有很多我們可以做的,但是誰要來推動他們來做? 有一些團體正在做這件事。 No Labels和Common Cause,我想, 對於我們需要做的改變有非常好的想法 來讓我們的民主制度更能因應變化, 和讓我們的國會更有效率。
But I'd like to supplement their work with a little psychological trick, and the trick is this. Nothing pulls people together like a common threat or a common attack, especially an attack from a foreign enemy, unless of course that threat hits on our polarized psychology, in which case, as I said before, it can actually pull us apart. Sometimes a single threat can polarize us, as we saw. But what if the situation we face is not a single threat but is actually more like this, where there's just so much stuff coming in, it's just, "Start shooting, come on, everybody, we've got to just work together, just start shooting." Because actually, we do face this situation. This is where we are as a country.
但是我想要以一個小小的心理的招術來 幫忙他們的工作,這個招術是這樣的。 沒有什麼能像一個共同的威脅 或是攻擊可以把人們團結在一起, 特別是像一個來自一個外國敵人的攻擊, 當然除非那個威脅是落在 我們易被兩極化的心理上, 這樣的話,如同我之前說的, 那實際上會把我們分離。 如同我們看到的,有時候單一一個威脅可以分裂我們。 但是如果我們面對的不是一個單一的威脅 而是比較像這樣的, 就是有太多東西即將到來, 就會是,「開始射擊,快點,每個人, 我們必須要一起合作,就是開始射擊就對了。」 因為事實上,我們的確面臨這種情況。 這是我們現在身為一個國家所處的情況。
So here's another asteroid. We've all seen versions of this graph, right, which shows the changes in wealth since 1979, and as you can see, almost all the gains in wealth have gone to the top 20 percent, and especially the top one percent. Rising inequality like this is associated with so many problems for a democracy. Especially, it destroys our ability to trust each other, to feel that we're all in the same boat, because it's obvious we're not. Some of us are sitting there safe and sound in gigantic private yachts. Other people are clinging to a piece of driftwood. We're not all in the same boat, and that means nobody's willing to sacrifice for the common good. The left has been screaming about this asteroid for 30 years now, and the right says, "Huh, what? Hmm? No problem. No problem."
然後這裡有另一個小行星。 我們都曾看過這個圖表,對吧, 這顯示自1979年以來財富的改變, 如你所看到的,幾乎所有財富的增加 都在前百分之二十的人手裡,特別是前百分之一的人。 像這樣增加的財富不均是和 民主國家裡的許多問題是有關連的。 特別是這破壞了我們信任彼此的能力、 去認為我們都在同一條船上的能力, 因為很明顯地我們不是。 我們之間有一些人坐在巨大的私人遊艇裡安然無恙。 其他人卻得緊抓著浮木不放。 我們不在同一條船上,而這代表 沒有人會願意犧牲來換取大眾共同的利益。 左翼已經抱怨這個小行星有長達30年了, 而右翼說「什麼? 嗯? 沒有問題,沒有問題。」
Now, why is that happening to us? Why is the inequality rising? Well, one of the largest causes, after globalization, is actually this fourth asteroid, rising non-marital births. This graph shows the steady rise of out-of-wedlock births since the 1960s. Most Hispanic and black children are now born to unmarried mothers. Whites are headed that way too. Within a decade or two, most American children will be born into homes with no father. This means that there's much less money coming into the house. But it's not just money. It's also stability versus chaos. As I know from working with street children in Brazil, Mom's boyfriend is often a really, really dangerous person for kids.
現在, 為何這會發生在我們身上? 為何財富不均日漸擴大? 其中一個最大的原因,在全球化之後, 實際上是這第四個小行星, 未婚生子數量增加。 這個圖表顯示自從60年代起非婚生子數量 的穩定成長。 這個圖表顯示自從60年代起非婚生子數量 的穩定成長。 大部份現在西班牙裔美國人 和非裔美國人小孩都是非婚子。 美國白人也正朝這個趨勢走。 在未來的十到二十年內,大部份的美國小孩 都會出生在沒有父親的家庭裡。 這代表家庭的收入會更少。 但是這不只是錢。 這也會造成不是穩定就是混亂的狀態。 從我和巴西的流浪兒童合作裡知道, 媽媽的男朋友通常是對於小孩子而言非常非常危險的人。
Now the right has been screaming about this asteroid since the 1960s, and the left has been saying, "It's not a problem. It's not a problem." The left has been very reluctant to say that marriage is actually good for women and for children. Now let me be clear. I'm not blaming the women here. I'm actually more critical of the men who won't take responsibility for their own children and of an economic system that makes it difficult for many men to earn enough money to support those children. But even if you blame nobody, it still is a national problem, and one side has been more concerned about it than the other. The New York Times finally noticed this asteroid with a front-page story last July showing how the decline of marriage contributes to inequality.
現在右翼已從60年代就抱怨這個小行星, 而左翼卻一直說「這不是個問題,這不是個問題。」 左翼一直都不情願說 婚姻事實上對女人和小孩是好的。 現在讓我說清楚。 在這點上,我不是在責怪女人。 我實際上是會更批評那些 不對他們自已小孩負起責任的男人 和一個讓很多男人難以賺到足夠的錢 來支持這些小孩的經濟系統。 但是即使不怪任何人,這仍然是一個全國性的問題, 而一派一直是比另一派更關心這個問題。 紐約時報終於注意到這個小行星 並在去年七月出了一個頭版 顯示結婚率的降低是如何導致財富不均的問題。
We are becoming a nation of just two classes. When Americans go to college and marry each other, they have very low divorce rates. They earn a lot of money, they invest that money in their kids, some of them become tiger mothers, the kids rise to their full potential, and the kids go on to become the top two lines in this graph. And then there's everybody else: the children who don't benefit from a stable marriage, who don't have as much invested in them, who don't grow up in a stable environment, and who go on to become the bottom three lines in that graph.
我們正形成一個只有兩個等級的國家。 當美國人去上大學,和彼此結婚, 他們有很低的離婚率。 他們賺很多錢,他們投資很多在他們的小孩身上, 他們其中一些人變成虎媽, 他們的小孩發揮他們最大的潛力, 然後這些小孩再度變成 這個圖表的最上面這兩條線。 然後剩下的就是所有的其他人: 沒有從穩定婚姻裡獲益、 沒有得到很多資源、 沒有在穩定的環境裡成長的小孩子, 會成為這個圖表的下面三條線。
So once again, we see that these two graphs are actually saying the same thing. As before, we've got a problem, we've got to start working on this, we've got to do something, and what's wrong with you people that you don't see my threat?
所以再一次地, 我們可以看到這兩個圖表事實上說的是同一件事。 如同之前我們有一個問題一樣,我們必須要開始去解決, 我們必須做一些事情, 到底你們這些沒有看到我的威脅的人是有什麼問題?
But if everybody could just take off their partisan blinders, we'd see that these two problems actually are best addressed together. Because if you really care about income inequality, you might want to talk to some evangelical Christian groups that are working on ways to promote marriage. But then you're going to run smack into the problem that women don't generally want to marry someone who doesn't have a job. So if you really care about strengthening families, you might want to talk to some liberal groups who are working on promoting educational equality, who are working on raising the minimum wage, who are working on finding ways to stop so many men from being sucked into the criminal justice system and taken out of the marriage market for their whole lives.
但是如果所有的人可以把他們那矇住眼的黨派眼罩拿下來, 我們就可以看到這兩個問題實際上 最好是一起被解決。 因為如果你真的關心財富不均的問題的話, 你也許想和一些正在找尋方法來 提倡婚姻的福音派基督團體聊一下。 但是你就會遇到一個問題, 就是女人通常不想嫁給 沒有工作的男人。 所以如果你真的想要加強家庭關係的話, 你也許會想要和一些 正在提倡教育平等、 正設法提升最低薪資、 正設法阻止許多男人被刑事司法系統吸入 而從婚姻市場離開一輩子 的自由主義團體聊一下。
So to conclude, there are at least four asteroids headed our way. How many of you can see all four? Please raise your hand right now if you're willing to admit that all four of these are national problems. Please raise your hands. Okay, almost all of you.
最後總結,至少有四個行星正往我們飛來 你們有多少人可以看見這四個? 請現在舉起你的手,如果你願意接受 所有這四個都是全國性的問題。 請舉起你的手。 好的,幾乎所有的人。
Well, congratulations, you guys are the inaugural members of the Asteroids Club, which is a club for all Americans who are willing to admit that the other side actually might have a point. In the Asteroids Club, we don't start by looking for common ground. Common ground is often very hard to find. No, we start by looking for common threats because common threats make common ground.
那麼,恭喜,你們都是行星俱樂部的 創始會員,這是一個 給所有願意接受另一派 事實上也許有對的觀點的美國人。 給所有願意接受另一派 事實上也許有對的觀點的美國人。 在行星俱樂部裡,我們不從建立共同的基點開始。 共同的基點通常很難找到。 不,我們從找共同的威脅開始 因為共同的威脅建立共同的基點。
Now, am I being naive? Is it naive to think that people could ever lay down their swords, and left and right could actually work together? I don't think so, because it happens, not all that often, but there are a variety of examples that point the way. This is something we can do. Because Americans on both sides care about the decline in civility, and they've formed dozens of organizations, at the national level, such as this one, down to many local organizations, such as To The Village Square in Tallahassee, Florida, which tries to bring state leaders together to help facilitate that sort of working together human relationship that's necessary to solve Florida's problems. Americans on both sides care about global poverty and AIDS, and on so many humanitarian issues, liberals and evangelicals are actually natural allies, and at times they really have worked together to solve these problems. And most surprisingly to me, they sometimes can even see eye to eye on criminal justice. For example, the incarceration rate, the prison population in this country has quadrupled since 1980. Now this is a social disaster, and liberals are very concerned about this. The Southern Poverty Law Center is often fighting the prison-industrial complex, fighting to prevent a system that's just sucking in more and more poor young men. But are conservatives happy about this? Well, Grover Norquist isn't, because this system costs an unbelievable amount of money. And so, because the prison-industrial complex is bankrupting our states and corroding our souls, groups of fiscal conservatives and Christian conservatives have come together to form a group called Right on Crime. And at times they have worked with the Southern Poverty Law Center to oppose the building of new prisons and to work for reforms that will make the justice system more efficient and more humane.
我現在是很天真嗎? 認為人們可以放下他們劍, 且左翼和右翼可以一起合作是很天真嗎? 我不認為,因為這發生過, 不是很常發生,但是有一些例子顯示這可以發生。 這是我們可以做的。 因為左右兩派的美國人都關心彼此關係上的減弱, 他們已成立數十個全國性的機構, 例如像這個, 下至許多地方性的機構, 例如佛羅里達州的To The Village Square in Tallahassee, 這個是試圖把州顉袖們聚在一起來促進 那種人與人之間的合作關係, 那是在解決佛羅里達州的問題上是必要的。 左右兩派的美國人都關心全球貧窮和愛滋病, 和其他許多人道主義議題, 自由主義派和福音派事實上是個自然的盟友, 而且有時他們真的一起合作 來解決這些問題。 而最讓我驚訝的是,他們有時候甚至對於 刑事司法的看法一致。 例如,監禁率、監獄人囗 在這個國家從1980年起已增加到四倍。 這是一個社會上的災難, 自由主義人士對此是非常擔憂的。 The Southern Poverty Law Center經常抨擊 監獄產業集團,並爭取防止一個 只是把更多更多貧窮年輕男人納入的系統。 但是保守派人士對這高興嗎? 嗯,Grover Norquist不高興,因為這個系統 會花費不可置信的錢。 所以,因為監獄產業集團 正在使我們的州政府赤貧,並損害我們的心靈, 一群財政保守黨人士和基督教保守黨人士 已聚在一起成立一個團體叫做Right on Crime。 他們曾經和Southern Poverty Law Center合作 來反對建造新的監獄 和一起做改革來讓司法制度 更有效率和更有人性。
So this is possible. We can do it. Let us therefore go to battle stations, not to fight each other, but to begin deflecting these incoming asteroids. And let our first mission be to press Congress to reform itself, before it's too late for our nation.
所以這是有可能的。 我們可以做的。 所以讓我們現在去戰鬥基地, 不是和彼此戰鬥, 而是開始把那些快到達的小行星偏移。 我們首要的任務是訴求國會 改革他們自已,在一切都太遲之前。
Thank you. (Applause)
謝謝大家。 (掌聲)